Response letters from MPs

[Brian d marge]

Nice words, but these arguaments haven't been put to parliament.

This ACC Bill sailed through parliament a couple of days back with a majority of 40 odd.

Thats the problem

They dont have the numbers ,

I was watching the stop and search me bill get passed the other nite , IF THE MAORI PARTY VOTE

we will not have the numbers

I was impressed with some of the back bencher's ,,,so hope for the future there

Stephen

[sammcj]

Dear Sam


Thank you for your recent email about the Government’s plan to raise motorcycle levies.

The current ACC levy on motorbikes is $252.00.

The Government is proposing to treble that to $735.00 for bikes over 600cc, an increase of just under $500 a year.

That represents the biggest ever increase in ACC levies.

It is unacceptable, it's outrageous, and it's not warranted.

The clear message from the Government is that it wants motorbikes priced off the road.

It ignores the fact that bikers use less petrol, create less pollution, and cause less congestion.

It ignores the fact, too, that nearly two thirds of accidents involving motorbikes are caused by cars.

And what about the people who are motor bike enthusiasts who have a number of bikes, though don't necessarily do high mileage on them? They'll pay an extra $500 on each bike.

ACC Minister Nick Smith keeps saying that this is an insurance scheme and it should be user pays – each category should meet the cost of accidents in that area.

ACC was never designed as a pure user pays insurance system. It was intended as a no-fault comprehensive system of protection for people who suffered injuries.

If it were user pays:

• some occupational areas, like farming, would be priced out of existence
• levies would be charged on sports clubs and schools because it's riskier to play sport than sit on the couch and watch it on TV
• elderly people who have more falls because of frailty would be charged for growing old
• push bikes would pay huge levies because of a high rate of accidents, also often not their own fault

None of that makes sense, and the Government shouldn't be playing one sector of New Zealanders off against another.

The decision is arbitrary on a number of other fronts. The cut-off points in terms of cc ratings do not, for example, take into account the relative power of motorcycles and would treat a vintage 650cc motorcycle as more dangerous than a 250cc modern bike capable of doing more than 200kph.

National is undermining ACC by reducing the scope of entitlements for injured New Zealanders, while it disproportionately hikes up levies for groups like motorcyclists.

To make matters worse, the National/Act/Maori Party government is privatising major parts of ACC. The insurance and management of injuries is being privatised. Instead of being provided by ACC this will be provided by private insurance companies. ACC has very low administration costs. The profits that Australian owned private insurance companies expect to earn have been estimated by Merrill Lynch to total $200million per annum. New Zealanders will end up paying more for less cover.

The government has been claiming ACC is insolvent. But it’s scaremo ngering. ACC has over $11 billion of reserves and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.

In Parliament, Labour has and will continue to fight against the unprecedented cost burden that the Government is trying to impose on bikers.

We will work with you to try to get some sense out of the Government and a fair deal for bikers.

New Zealand has the world’s best accident compensation scheme. Labour wants to keep it that way

Thank you for writing on this important issue.


Yours sincerely


Hon David Parker

[R-Soul]

This is my submission to the ACC sent to consultation@acc.co.nz (this is the email address for submissions in response to their proposal - send yours by 10 November 2009).

Dear Sirs

This is my submission on increased motorbike levies. Firstly, let’s establish what the general strategic vision of the ACC is:

It is stated on the ACC strategic plan 2007-1012 that strategic priority no 2 is “maintaining fair and stable levies”, and strategic priority no 5 is preventing injuries.

Your proposed motorbike levy increases are not fair for the reasons stated below, and are clearly not stable as they amount to an increase of 200% over a single year!

Further, your proposal does not further your stated intention of “REDUCING” injuries (i.e. by prevention).

Lastly, it s the ACC’s responsibility as a no–fault accident compensation scheme not to allocate fault to any one particular group of compensation receivers. For example, it would not be fair to hammer rugby players with huge levies because their chosen lifestyle is more dangerous than others. In particular, people who are forced to commute by bike (such as students) by high parking and fuel costs will least be able to afford such levy hikes.

However, where fault is to be allocated, then it should be allocated according to general principles without reference or targeted at any particular minority grouping. And it should be targeted at real fault, not just at lifestyle choices (which may or may not be choices at all for some – such as commuters). Any allocation of fault or penalty by increased levies aimed at a particular minority group is unfair and against the basic principles of human rights. Further, such proposed levies are not fair to owners of multiple vehicles.

It is also an established fact that NZ would benefit from having increased bike usage because of
- Reduced fuel usage and offshore fuel payments
- Reduced road wear and tear
- Reduced congestion in cities
- Increased amount of parking in cities
- Reduced vehicle importation costs
- Reduced pollution due to more efficient transport usage


I now refer you to the LTNZ accident factsheet at this website :
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

In summary:
• The percentage of single vehicle accidents that were due to the rider losing control was closer to 90%.
• These "rider losing control "crashes make up 26% of all motorcyclist accidents- this is probably due to speed or lack of training.
• Other vehicles were at fault or partially at fault in 46% of all bike crashes.
• Bikers were at fault or partially at fault in 58% of all bike crashes.
• The main critical crash movements are:
- vehicle turning across path of bike- 13% (i.e visibility problems)
- Losing control turning right - 12% (i.e speed too high)
- losing control turning left -8% (i.e. speed too high)
- vehicle crossing path of bike- 10% (i.e. visibility problems)
• The pie chart on page 5 shows the influence of alcohol, drugs and/or speed in crashes- 45% of all fatal bike crashes involved these (and this was not necessarily speed of the bike, or drunkenness of the rider – it could also have been the car drivers speed or state of inebriatedness)
• This figure is probably more if you look at all bike crashes instead of just fatal ones.
• If car accident statistics were looked at, they would probably show similar trends related to alcohol/drugs and speed.


The information on this site shows how some specific factors cause a large proportion of accidents. These factors can be targeted (according to your strategic priority no 5) to reduce the injuries, rather than just slap the bikers with the bill in an unfair way after the fact – this is not preventing injuries). We believe that using general principles, levies can be increased as a general principle to all vehicle users in a fair way, and target the main causes of accidents (in order to reduce injures) while doing so.

From these figures we can identify three main causes of accidents to target:
1. Alcohol, drugs and speed
2. Lack of rider/driver training causing loss of control of vehicle
3. Lack of visibility of bikes in high traffic situation

We deal with each showing how they can be targeted. There is a certain amount of overlap here.

1. Multiple vehicle owners: Drivers and riders can pay ACC levies per drivers licence. A driver can only drive one vehicle at a time after all, and the risk of injury will only apply to that vehicle at the time it is being driven. This will cut out unfairness to multiple vehicle owners as well.
2. Alcohol, drugs and speed: ACC levies can be charged on a sliding scale depending on the number of speed/drugs or alcohol related offences the driver/rider has been charged with (or perhaps in proportion to the current points system?). This proposal targets the people who are actually the main source of the injuries (i.e the real fault) in a fair and general way and is consistent with general human rights.
3. Lack of rider/driver training : ACC levies can be reduced on a sliding scale if that license holder can prove that they have attended riding or driving courses (such as advanced driving courses or defensive driving courses). This target those injuries due to riders losing control of their vehicle. This would also have the additional effect of creating jobs for instructors, and possibly help reduce injuries by young drivers and riders due to increased rate of learning and increased vehicle control.
4. Lack of visibility: Lack of visibility of bikes can be addressed in a number of ways:
o Allowing bikes to use bus lanes of motorways (this is currently not allowed for some unexplained arbitrary reason) – this will reduce the dangerous practice of filtering at high speed.
o Requiring compulsory use of high visibility vests (at least during peak traffic hours) and/or reflectors.
o Making thin bike lanes available where bus lanes are not available- This will encourage more bike riding, increase bike safety due to reduced filtering, and remind and encourage cars to check the lane before turning across it.


As you can see, the above proposals show how levies can be increased, but in a targeted way, while hopefully reducing the main source of the payout problem- the injuries themselves.

We trust that you will give serious attention to our alternative proposals.

Yours sincerely,

[sammcj]

Very well put Sir.

[AllanB]

And, the letter started with a sentence I don't understand "Tena koe i nga ahuatanga o te wa"

Pretty sure this reads as: "touch your toes as we may be shafting you too soon".

Actually the Maori Party will be with bikers on the ACC rises.

Government statistics clearly show that there are a high percentage of Maori in prisons, consequently there is probably a high percentage of Maori bike thieves. High ACC rego fees will mean less bikes, thus 'our people' will be disadvantaged ..........


(or well and truly a tongue-in-cheek piss take chaps)

[sammcj]

Pretty sure this reads as: "touch your toes as we may be shafting you too soon".

Actually the Maori Party will be with bikers on the ACC rises.

Government statistics clearly show that there are a high percentage of Maori in prisons, consequently there is probably a high percentage of Maori bike thieves. High ACC rego fees will mean less bikes, thus 'our people' will be disadvantaged ..........


(or well and truly a tongue-in-cheek piss take chaps)

This made my morning....

[StoneY]

Cathy (AKA Miss Piggy) the wonderful kermit lover she is, has sent around a great breakdown of the facts thats been summarised from the Bikers Against ACC website (GREAT work all who did this)

I wonder where the best place to post a copy of that document would be so it wont vanish in the ACC Levy clutter?

It ustterly shoots down every point in this e-mail and also shows the way they choose to skew the stats to suit the moment

[R-Soul]

Cathy (AKA Miss Piggy) the wonderful kermit lover she is, has sent around a great breakdown of the facts thats been summarised from the Bikers Against ACC website (GREAT work all who did this)

I wonder where the best place to post a copy of that document would be so it wont vanish in the ACC Levy clutter?

It ustterly shoots down every point in this e-mail and also shows the way they choose to skew the stats to suit the moment

A quick thought here. ipay about $250 for my bike per year. there are supposedly 110,000 bikes in NZ. Do they all pay the same?

Because 110,000x250 = 27,500,000 - a lot more than the supposed 12 mill that they said they got from us? Or is this simplistic?

[R-Soul]

In answer to your signature - The ACC find their statistics where other statisticians do. They make up 97.35 % of them on the spot.

Question: Whats one plus one?

mathematician: 1+1= 2

engineer: 1.001+1.001= 2.002

statistician: 1+1 = whatever you want it to be..

[MSTRS:Me]

A quick thought here. ipay about $250 for my bike per year. there are supposedly 110,000 bikes in NZ. Do they all pay the same?

Because 110,000x250 = 27,500,000 - a lot more than the supposed 12 mill that they said they got from us? Or is this simplistic?

Because only a portion of those bikes have live registrations. A chunk of them are scooters with a lower rate. The $252 came in in July 09 (certainly this year sometime). Prior to that the levy was $166.50.

[R-Soul]

Because only a portion of those bikes have live registrations. A chunk of them are scooters with a lower rate. The $252 came in in July 09 (certainly this year sometime). Prior to that the levy was $166.50.

Yes I suspected that there were a few if's and/or buts around somewhere...

[Hawk]

Dear XXXXX Thank you for your email setting out the reasons why you are opposed to the proposed increase in ACC levies for motorcycles.
ACC is currently facing some real challenges with its liabilities ballooning to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is quite simply unaffordable.
In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.
The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.
To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.
We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.
The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. I encourage you to have your say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November by going to
www.acc.co.nz/consultation Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.
Once again, thanks for taking the time to provide me with your view.
Regards
Amy Adams
MP for Selwyn


Amy you just lost a vote

[BikerDazz]

The trouble with ACT's line is that National applied the same bullshit to justifying opening up the electriicity industry to private competition - what happened? huge price hikes and ridiculous price spikes during dry spells.

If you vote National you can't complain about ACC levies as the bastards always look for easy ways to cut spending.

Thanks Sammcj for posting those stats from ACC - I knew the pricks were pulling the wool!

[sammcj]

I had a pretty interesting conversation with a ex-psychiatrist from Christchurch Hospital today.

He did a lot of digging a few years back and uncovered some pretty horrific information on how ACC money is being spent in the health sector.

Aparently, as a Doctor it's pretty common to see people scabbing off ACC for injuries for many years, he believes that Doctors do not understand the repercussions to the tax payer and simply don't have enough restrictions on the payouts.

Also; he went on to say that it's utterly discusting the number people of people are getting overcompensated for mental trauma and small injuries - often sports related. More often than not; people simply don't get anything out of repeat visits to mental health counselors.

According to him; most GP's are far to ready to pass the ACC handouts to people who really don't need them.

[sammcj]

ALSO.

What do you all think about trying to push the ACC leveys onto an tri-annual Drivers Licence Fee?

It could be:

-Regulated based on what Licences you hold.
-Different class's of your licence could be put on hold when not in use. (i.e. over the winter)
-You could get fined if you're driving a vehicle when your special licence is on hold.

This way you would only be paying for yourself, not anyone that chooses to drive you car, i.e. if you own a car and 3 bikes you only pay one lot of ACC.

Also, SUV's / 4WD's registered for road use could have a special class that doesn't require any special driver training BUT does impose a fee due to the vehicle's impact rating, emissions and weight.

Fines for driving with the incorrect class / with a licence class on hold could be raised to take into account the people that risk driving without a licence to get around paying the fee's.


Just for interests sake if you want to come and have a chat about this with me, look for me on the ride tomorrow riding a old honda gb.

... dreams are free.